Between

MONDAY 7.2.12 UPDATE: Hey guys, I am currently buried under work and couldn’t get a new comic up for Monday (or one that I am comfortable publishing quality-wise) so I’ll have to skip today. Sorry guys, business should resume on Wednesday 7.4.12

UPDATE 2: It turns out I am going to resume on Friday. Sorry guys. Long story. I’ll tell you then.

I never claimed to be an editorial/political cartoonist but today’s comic was an interesting (and entertaining) challenge.

No doubt there are a lot of gaming topics/issues worthy of placement in today’s comic but in the end, I elected to drop in a few of the issues that hit home for me as a long-time gamer.

This line of thinking, (and a few discussions on Twitter), that led to this comic. I cannot imagine the pressure the folks working on the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons are under with so many hot-button issues surrounding the project. Think about it for a moment if you haven’t already. You have a relatively small group of talented people attempting to do with a wholly creative project where few can claim success: Make everyone happy.

Those of you who sighed “Oh man…”or made a sympathetic face for the D&D Next creative team, I am right there with you and I have no doubt that the creative team and most of the rational people playing D&D these days have no illusions about such things. We know making every fan of D&D happy with the new edition is a near impossibility. There are simply too many variables and a near-infinite scope of individual tastes when it comes to play style and presentation. There will be fans. There will be folks who do not care for the rules. There will be extremes on both sides of the pro/con camps. Some people will see no fault in the system at all due to brand or creator loyalty, while some will hate everything about D&D Next simply out of spite or a feeling of betrayal. It is human nature and it happens with every new edition of D&D.

We could talk about love/hate and system specifics all day but that’s not what I’m on about here today. What I really want to get down to with this post (and the comic) is one word: Respect. That’s right, I am making a probably feeble call to the D&D community to take a step back and show this whole thing some common respect and decency. I know it is crazy to ask for such things but hear me out.

If you hit any form of online gaming community (forums, Twitter, etc.) you know there is a HUGE divide in the folks who are pro D&D Next and those who do not care for what they’re seeing. Again, it is to be expected but what’s alarming is the heightened level of venom coursing through the veins of the community these days. I’ve never seem it this bad with previous editions. People are angry. People are arguing. People are throwing respect for the creators, fellow gamers, and people in general out of the window. We all need to take a breath and get a grip.

Watching feeds and discussions, it seems you’re either a fanboy/fangirl, a hater, a game-shamer, an elitist, a grognard, or a troll by most folks appraisals. I’ll cop to it, I’ve fallen into frustration and called out a few people or laid a blanket “calm the fuck down” on Twitter like a hypocrite. It is not the best way to handle things but I’m Human. That said, this week I took my own step back and decided to approach the community a different way.

If D&D Next doesn’t float your boat, be cool about it. I know you love 4e (or another edition) and you may feel betrayed by WotC’s decision to move on to D&D Next. I get that but what I would try to impress upon you is that MOST of the folks working at Wizards of the Coast did not make that executive decision and they are doing their jobs, which is to try to make the best game possible. Every time you throw some venom-filled insult at one of the designers or community managers, you are essentially spitting in their face for doing a job that is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone. Think about it: You’re doing your job and someone walks in and kicks you in the gut, calls you a piece of garbage and leaves. Sure, it’s easy to hide behind internet anonymity but come on this isn’t politics or world affairs, it’s D&D. I live and breathe D&D but damn, have some common courtesy. If Next isn’t for you, play whatever makes you happy. I love Mario 64 but I didn’t quit playing it when Nintendo moved on to new systems. I STILL play Mario 64. No one is taking those early editions away and there is so much reference out there already you can run for years and not use it all.

On the flipside of that, if you love D&D Next thus far, avoid labeling or attacking the folks who do not care for it. If you really want to make your case, invite them to play a session and show them what you’re excited about. If they decline or try it and still dislike it, shake hands and talk about gaming in the broad strokes because at the core, we ALL love gaming. We should try to remember that more often.

Live and let play.

COMMENTERS: What do you do in situations where you disagree with game mechanics or philosophies? How do you feel about D&D Next thus far? Warning: Be cool. If you act like an ass, I will kick you quickly and efficiently. I never have to say this really but this could be a hot-button day.

Discussion (53) ¬

If I disagree with a mechanic while in-play, I do my best to suck it up, accept that’s how the game is written and lobby for a houserule next time… or just not play that game again.

As for D&D Next, I like the direction they’re going. I like theater of the mind gameplay, I like players and GMs working together and I like simple mechanics. I know there will be other modules coming out and that those will add to the game, which also excites me. I like the publisher telling me that I can make the game my own. I would’ve done it anyway but hearing them say it; feels good, man.

Truth. If the rules don’t jive, they must not survive. The great thing about DnD is that it is an infinite # of games rolled into one, and no one plays it the same way. I’m liking dndnext so far, its streamlined and quick, and has the feel of past editions, which were lost a bit in the presentation of 4e (which I do love). Now, I just need players who aren’t jerks about using pregens.

Honestly, after the 3.5/4e edition war in 2008, the beginnings of dndnext have seemed fairly calm and rational. There’s always a few crazies, but I don’t agree with Brian’s statement of “the heightened level of venom coursing through the veins of the community these days. I’ve never seen it this bad with previous editions.”

That being said, I’ve also learned to avoid most of the douchebag filled sites over the last few years, so maybe I’m not seeing it like I used to

Agreed. The 3.5/4e fallout was BRUTAL. I mostly frequent Paizo’s forums these days, and it’s not so bad. Lots of good conversation going on regarding DDNext and it’s fairly civil. Still some old grognards who hate/love WotC just because, but all in all things have settled down tremendously. That, and the moderators over there don’t take any shit.

After 4e came out and completely underwhelmed me I must say I’m totally ‘meh!’ about D&D Next. Our gaming group has moved on to systems like Song Of Ice and Fire or Heroquest or even Pathfinder if we are returning to the fold a little. If they want our attention back the designers of D&D Next will have to do something exceptional.

I’m not a huge D&D fan. 3.0 burnt me out. 4E was a version that I enjoyed playing for the tactical combat and with the right group could just roll with the non-combat side, even if it wasn’t as supported as I like.

If I don’t like a game’s philosophies? I don’t play it. It is that simple. I’m lucky to live in a multi-game community where I’m running Dresden Files, my friend is running Classic Deadlands and Eclipse Phase, another friend just finished a 4th Edition campaign and is probably starting a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition game, at least one or two more 4th ed games, and a Dark Heresy game.

The problem with this philosophy and the fact that I like 4th Edition means that when the support goes away, life gets more difficult because of how integrated the support for 4th edition was for the web – DDI made life easy. That’ll probably go away for D&D Next.

As far as D&D Next? I’m “meh” on it. It is taking all the stuff that I didn’t like in the older editions and making it a staple. Themes and Backgrounds look interesting, but not enough to drag me forward.

Which is fine, WotC is free not to pursue my dollar, I just wish they’d stop writing ad copy like they were; that’s probably what most annoys me – “It is okay that you’ve decided to go in a different direction and not put in the things I enjoyed from the edition I enjoy. Really. It is fine. You are going to catch heat for it from the internet; but well, that’s the internet, take a large enough group of people and you’ll get a bunch of assholes. However, just rip the damn band-aid off.”

What I MOST fear is that they actually believe what they are trying to sell. That they DO believe they are incorporating the bits of 4E that folks enjoyed. Why do I fear that? It means they don’t understand. And when there’s a misunderstanding, that leads to mismatched expectations, poor execution, and longer term and more drama.

I think the error of WotC is that they are letting Hasbro put pressure on them right now to either produce something that will capture the RPG market or all monetary support for DnD will be ripped away. That means no more support outside a few modules here and there, and maybe an expansion piece every year.

WotC does imagination very well, I’ll give them that. They also understand a toy/collectable market very well. What they don’t seem to understand is that RPGs don’t necessarily fall into the market they are used to dealing with, and when they treat the RPG market like a toy or collectable market, everyone loses.

“I think the error of WotC is that they are letting Hasbro put pressure on them right now to either produce something that will capture the RPG market or all monetary support for DnD will be ripped away.”

To quote Wikipedia, “Citation needed.”

I keep seeing this statement floating around that Hasbro is putting pressure on WotC in regards to D&D. I’d like to know what evidence there is of this.

Hasbro is the parent company of Wizards of the Coast. Hasbro has released their mission statement for 2013 stating that the D&D folks in Wizards is working on the next “killer” D&D product, which will take the market “by storm.” Everyone who has ever worked for Hasbro (I have) knows that this is corporate speak for, “They will either succeed spectacularly or they will face the wrath of the budget board for not utterly annhilating the competition.”

They did it to Avalon Hill, which was a part of Wizards. I see the exact same thing they did to the Avalon Hill folks (putting a ton of pressure on AH with unrealistic expectations) happening now to the D&D folks at Wizards.

I’m with you on this. I’m interested in Next, but I really wish they’d quit promising this-or-that, then releasing L&L articles that clearly display a lack of understanding about what I (and arguably the community) think this-or-that was or consists of to begin with.

I don’t believe in criticizing anything that you haven’t taken the time to sit down and play with an open mind, so I’ve run 2 playtest sessions for friends, and both were surprising. I expected my Dark Dungeons group to love it and my 4e players to hate it. Neither was the case. It was a very calm middle on both fronts. That’s hopeful, at least.

The amount of vitriol I’ve seen so far has totally put me off following the development of the next edition. I learned my lesson following the development of 4E. There’s just no room in my life for that kind of elistist hater crap right now.

I have a very simple gauge for the quality of D&D Next: if a particular player in my group talks about how “totally awesome” certain aspects are, I know I need to look at it with a critical eye. If another person I know hates it with the fury of the thousand suns, it’s the same thing: I’ll look at it with a critical eye. There are several people in the community whose reactions I’ll follow and if they think it’s worth looking at, then I’ll have a look at it. Right now, I don’t need a new edition, but I’m not opposed to the possibility, particularly if the fluff-heavy supplements I have collected over the years can easily be used with it.

I have no illusions that I will ever play another future version of D&D. It is my honest opinion that WOTC dropped the ball badly with 4e. Paizo picked it up again, and made the sensible move onwards for D&D with Pathfinder.

I appreciate the fact that D&D 4th went back to the roots of D&D, with its miniature-based approach, but way before that, WOTC, and in part TSR before them, made their core books and supplements so inundated in boring language that they felt more like textbooks for university-level studies, and less like books for a leisure activity.

Unlike the rest of the commenters, I’m not going to declare my position on DnD Next. Because that would violate the whole point of this post.

I will, however, stand up and declare my respect for the WotC designers. They have an impossible job, and are doing a hell of a job shooting for the stars. Honestly, if I had to work in the eye of the shit storm they endure, I’d quit. Yes, even from the dream job of writing D&D.

Brian, I applaud you for this post. If any of the WotC guys happen by here, I applaud you as well. For all of the other designers and content creators out there who offer up their children for strangers on the internet to take pot shots at, I applaud you.

I like some of what I’m seeing from D&D next. I was really hoping for vancian casting with at least one at-will that’s on par with a basic ranged attack. Overall, I feel like with a little more work, it could be great. Another impression I got was that they were trying to re-create 3.5e to some degree (though not entirely).

One thing I’m really happy that Brian brought up is that THERE ARE MULTIPLE EDITIONS FOR A REASON. I have almost no respect for people who claim that the game is “ruined forever” because of the advent of a new edition. If you like Basic D&D, play that. If you like AD&D, play that. If you like 2e, play that. If you like 3e, play that. If you like 3.5e, play that. If you like 4e, play that. If you end up liking D&D next/5e, play that. I, personally, mostly play 4e, but I see the good in 3.5e and Pathfinder (the only other editions/variations I’ve played). None are perfect. None are worthless. It’s a matter of PERSONAL preference.
I can’t stand it when people attack others simply because they prefer a different edition of the game. I can’t stand it when people claim a certain edition to be objectively “better” than another. I hate it when people try to call a certain edition “over-complicated,” or “video-gamey.” Each edition is what it is, and each individual should play what makes them happy and let others do the same.

I think that’s what killed it for me. I was receptive to 4e up to the point where I erroneously said, “I am somewhat wary of the designers’ intentions in some of the rules, but I will play it,” and a billion 4e fans descended upon me and said, “You’re a f**king retard. All the previous editions of D&D are f**king stupid. Go f**k yourself.” That and Mike Mearls – who I posed a vaild question to – told me that if I didn’t like what I saw in 4e, too bad because this version was the BEST version ever. He continued to tell me how my vision was flawed because it did not match his vision of what an RPG was.

So anything that involved Mike Mearls as a designer at the base level gets a ton of scrutiny from me. And anyone who tells me their version is better than a version I used to play is full of it. I mean, I can’t wait to tell someone who yells at me that DnDNext is the greatest version I’ve ever played that I DID play 4e like they did when they thought that was the greatest version ever.

What do you do in situations where you disagree with game mechanics or philosophies?

Depends on which side of the screen I’m on. If I’m the GM, then I’ve already made it clear that I will alter rules to fit the needs of the game… I’ve made sure the player’s expectations include my changing the rules. That being said, I’ll usually let it resolve in RAW, then explain to everyone how I’ll be handling it in the future. If it’s an option a player has chosen for their character, then I let her change the character if she’s not satisfied with my verdict.

As a player, I wait until after the game to discuss it with the other players/GM.

That being said, I usually try to pick systems where I don’t really have this issue. I don’t try to force square pegs into round holes.

How do you feel about D&D Next thus far?

I find this newest incarnation of the edition wars par for the course. For the record, I remember it being exactly like this when 4th edition came out. I also remember lots of arguments when 3rd and 2nd appeared too. Only then, the internet hadn’t allowed to consume massive feeds of commentary.

I think if you feel like this particular skirmish in the edition wars is more intense, then it might be related to a change in network size (virtual or physical) or your amount of investment in the situation. Instead of seeing just the tip of the iceberg, you’re now seeing the submerged portions as well…

Personally, I think D&D Next will probably be a swell game (I thought 4e was awesome, and probably would have met with far more accolades had it been named anything other than D&D), but, judging only by the information I’ve been given with the current version of the playtest, I do not feel like I have enough reason to invest money in it. It feels like a superbly houseruled version of an older edition, and frankly, I feel like I can do that myself.

Wizards of the Coast also lost my confidence in them a while back, not because of the product, but because of how [I perceive] they treat their customers. A good example with the recent playtest is all the [unenforceable] red tape they have you agree too, such as the [now rolled back] terms of not being able to use a VTT to playtest. How ridiculous!

That’s not to take away from the designers. Those guys bust their arse to put out quality product. My opinion also shouldn’t anger fans of the next edition either. I think that’s a big part of how the tension between fans keeps it’s momentum. I don’t begrudge anyone’s love for the game or the company, these are just my reasons I have little interest in them. Fans just tend to take any negative observation/opinion directed at their “team” as personal attacks when they shouldn’t.

[i]I think if you feel like this particular skirmish in the edition wars is more intense, then it might be related to a change in network size (virtual or physical) or your amount of investment in the situation. Instead of seeing just the tip of the iceberg, you’re now seeing the submerged portions as well…
[/i]

I think this is an important point. Things can get pretty ugly in the discussions, but honestly the fights over 4e were even worse. Hell, half the vitriol being spewed is the continued ongoing 3.5 vs 4e fight, with only tangental relationships to how it applies to 5e.

The thing that scares me about next is that we will be forced to switch from 4th to next mid campaing.
I’m a subscriber to insider, and my players and I use the builder for our characters. So far Nobody at Wizards has answered my question if when next comes out the builder will only be usable for next type characters. Cause if that’s the cause then we will have to switch o next mid campaign. So yeah, I’m with very mixed feelings about it.

Can somebody give me some tips for on-line builders of solutions if the insider builder gets turned to next and is no longer usable for 4th edition?

I think there is less venom out there, and more of a knee-jerk response on the part of D&D Next supporters to call any opposing or critical voice “venomous” or “hateful”. To put it bluntly, I’m a 4E fan, and I don’t like many of the mechanics I’ve seen in D&D Next. Nothing I’ve seen in either the closed or open playtest makes me want to toss my 4E books away, and embrace Next. And there are mechanics and rules that show some frightening disregard (?) for dice probabilities, which is not something I would expect from seasoned game designers.

I can’t see how folks don’t realize that D&D Next is destined to fail to unite the community, because there is far too much disparity between the editions. The game will be a mish-mash of ideas, pleasing no one group. And it’s release will end up alienating another group of D&D gamers to an unsupported game system, and possibly ignite another edition war.

My opinion about die probabilities is that in most games I played, we barely used any dice. Seriously.

In all honesty, there is a point at which a game becomes “too fair and balanced,” and not enough room for fiat/playing it by ear. And those rules-lawyers often find that their attitude towards the dice often put off other players.

If you’re playing a game where you’re not using any of the rules, and not rolling any dice though… what was the point of buying a game?

I mean sure, you can play free-form RPs, and have a lot of fun with it. But you don’t need a book to tell you how to do that. People expect a game that they pay for to have been designed with enough thought put into it that at least the basic math works right, even if some people can choose to ignore it.

I didn’t say we played a diceless version. I said we used dice less often than was expected. We used dice during combat. But we mostly used a system of stats comparison to determine other results (such as breaking down doors). And since we spent some campaigns mostly dealing with political problems and doing investigation, we rarely had to roll any dice.

Again, it’s your preference. But I found people who leaned heavily on translating die rolls into exact results and then arguing about said results when the DM used a fiat or didn’t mention all the penalties of said actions (you’d think that people would realize it’s not up to the DM to announce all penalties and bonuses with every single roll) tends to make the experience worse.

Everyone also needs to realize it isn’t DM vs Players. The DM is a player, too. 4E in some regards for some groups made it a competitive game of DM vs the Players. That is why some groups played 4E for awhile and then went to play something else.

I haven’t really been paying much attention to the edition wars, including D&D Next. I learned to play D&D before there was AD&D, then took a long hiatus (playing other games, Runequest, Cthulhu, etc.). I’ve just started playing again (Encounters) with my 11 year old and we’re having a blast. We’d be having a blast if it was 1st edition or Pathfinder or whatever, because we’re playing to have fun playing and the rules are just the mechanism for that.

If someone is getting so upset about (yet another) new set of rules, I wonder what the purpose of playing is for them?

I’m confident the creative team will make a game they enjoy playing. I hope they don lose sight of that idea, d&d is about fun and community and adventure. They don’t have to please everyone, they just have to keep those core ideas always in sight. I mean seriously if you don’t like it, don’t play your old edition didn’t disappear.

The guys at Wizards are just like us in that they want to make the best game of D&D possible. Every time I work with them I am impressed by their talent and their passion.

Many things are true. They do have thick skins, but sometimes the negativity gets to them. For example, PAX Prime tends to have this really cool healthy vibe because the audience is new and just happy to play. They are _far happier_ than the audience at Gen Con. Think on that; the most ardent fans are less happy. It is true for all games. As gamers we forget to express our love for our passion and instead often criticize it. We would all do well to try to balance our criticism (whether constructive or not) with our praise.

We should also be careful of constructing fake allegiances. To say Paizo is good and WotC is bad (or vice-versa) really borders on ignorance. The movers and shakers of those companies will and have changed over time. A number of designers and freelancers work for both companies or left one to work at the other. Sometimes, as with Chris Sims, they work at one, then at the other, then back for the original one. And our “side” is often an artificial choice, born less on some truism than on happenstance. We didn’t like one thing and this other one came along at the right time. Think about how much we loved Atari 2600 games or Monopoly and then later discovered other options. That will continue to happen as we find new games.

All of this suggests we should have respect for those that make games, even if at a particular point in time they aren’t our favorite. There will be a Pathfinder 2.0 and a D&D 6E, just as there were and will be multiple versions of Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings and so on and so forth. Editions come and go and it is up to us whether we spend our time being negative or having fun and building great communities.

I must say I do have huge respect for the designers having to cope with what must be massive scrutiny and vocal comment from sections of the Internet. I say ‘what must be’ because that highlights for me one of the biggest problems D&D Next will face. The fact that after the disappointment (for me) of 4.0 and the 3.5/4.0 edition wars the Fantasy gaming market has fractured to the extent I’ve not even been bothered to look up anything about D&D Next. My gaming needs and interests can be met elsewhere without even needing to own a copy of the D&D 4.0 rules. The designers will, I’m sure, create a game they enjoy playing and a game that will excite people. The danger is that they won’t excite enough because too many people won’t trust WotC to do something interesting and exciting that is playable by or even reaches out to a wide audience.

On the eternal debate about new versions of rules. Well hating new rules has become a right of passage in this pastime.
To the op. You are correct, the writers deserve credit for doing a thankless task that many of us would commit sins to do.

So to the writers of D&D, AD&D, 3E, 3.5, 4E, and D&DNext. Thank you for letting my imagination take me places. Thank you for showing us your worlds and letting us play in them. And thank you for being there these many decades.

The great thing about Pen and Paper games is that one edition doesn’t overwrite another. If you love 2.0/3.0/3.5/4.0 and not the rest, that is cool. A person can still *play* the edition he wants to play, regardless of what Wizards of The Coast is pushing at the moment. Plus when a new edition comes out, the older edition sourcebooks usually end up being cheaper to get. I feel like that is kind of a win/win situation, to be honest.

That doesn’t just go for Dungeons and Dragons, of course, but it goes for any Pen and Paper. Don’t like Shadowrun 4.0? Play the previous edition. Hate the new World of Darkness stuff? Well you don’t have to use it. That is the beauty of Pen and Paper gaming. Heck, Gygax even said that you don’t ahve to use all the rules in whatever edition you are mainly using. The point of playing a game is to have fun – taking away or adding rules to whatever edition you want? Go for it, if it makes the sessions more interesting.

I used to be totally against a new edition every five or six years – but I came to realize “Why do I care?” If doing this can bring more people in to the Pen and Paper gaming fold, so be it. I didn’t buy the 4E of DnD, but I do plan on buying DnD Next. If I don’t like it, I can always go back to the 3.x stuff.

I’ll admit it – I am not at a gaming session for the mechanics anyway. I’m there for the story and the people. We could be using a d3 for all the rolls nd it wouldn’t bother me. A good gaming circle is much more than the system that is being played.

I don’t disrespect the company at all. I admit, I haven’t been following 5E / “Next” at all … because WotC lost me as an active customer when they brought out 4E.

Even then, I didn’t disrespect people who liked 4E. I didn’t disrespect WotC, either. I did disrespect _specific game mechanics_ … but, game mechanics don’t have feelings that can be hurt. (Do I sense a comic idea in the making? lol!)

For me, 4E was a very large step backwards in terms of _diversity_. For just one example, the skill “Thieving”. That’s a step back to 1E, in my opinion. No longer could I make the young Artful Dodger who had great pickpocketing skills, but couldn’t pick a lock or disarm a trap to save his life – and wasn’t literate enough to “Decipher Script”. Nor could I make the “gentleman adventurer” who could find and disarm traps, pore over ancient manuscripts, even fiddle with locks, but pick someone’s pocket? MY GOD, man, that would be a crime!!

So, instead, I quietly took the exit marked “Pathfinder”, coating down the offramp that led to the kind of gaming I wanted to do.

Shame so many other people seemintent on starting a Jihad over the 4E/5E transition. 🙁

While it certainly wasn’t perfect, I enjoyed some of the ideas that 4e introduced. Everyone has a variety of powers to rely on, and they _always_ have some powers, regardless of how many they use in a day/hour/whatever. Skill challenges were cool, like puzzles to solve, and the skillful could feel as important as the combat-heavies.

That’s how it’s always been for me, really. Each new edition introduced–and I quote one of my favorite Eddie Izzard lines–some good ideas, and some fuckin’ weird ones. I’ve always had a soft spot for D&D as a “thing”, though, so I’ll always check out the new stuff, just to see where it goes, and what it evolves into.

Hopefully what D&DN proves to be is a bunch of lessons learned, and I’ll certainly try it, but I’m not about to believe this is the last iteration, or that it’ll be for everybody.

WotC suffers for thinking of itself as this big, huge business when it’s this small niche business with dedicated fans. Too many lawyers, too much corporate BS, too much reliance on spin, and too much keeping of secrets from the very fans who pay the bills.

It’s sad watching them make mistake after mistake, bad decision after bad decision.

Honestly, in 3.5 I had one really big problem: The huge disparity between magical and mundane classes. Magical classes could do everything ever, and with each thing they could beat out what a mundane character of the same level does even at their specialization. (seriously, by mid levels you could even have a Wizard who has more bonus feats and better combat stats than a fighter, if you actually cared).

Besides that, I really did love 3e though. So I worked around it. I houseruled the mundane classes to points where they were hardly recognizable. I made alternate rules for weapons, armor, skills, etc.

Then 4e came along. In one respect it got things right: It tried to close that disparity by giving everyone access to special powers. However, in doing so it got some things very wrong. It gave everyone powers on the same schedule, using the same system. While this makes for easier balance, it makes classes feel very samey (as demonstrated by the large volumes of people who to do this day claim 4e Fighters are spellcasters, despite their exploits being meaningfully different from wizard spells, in terms of what they actually do).

The other big problem in my opinion was the gutting of high level play. While they separated the game out into tiers, higher tier characters didn’t actually gain anything new or particularly impressive. At level 21 you can become a demigod, and by level 30 what you have to show for it is a couple stat bumps and a regeneration power. Rather than getting truly epic powers like high level 3.5 casters got, epic 4e characters got powers that were more of the same. A lot of “deal damage and add a status effect” even at high levels. Similarly, a lack of clear definition of challenges leads to weird things like a regular lock having a higher DC to pick for a high level character than for a low level character. Basically, high level play wound up feeling very similar to low level play, a very big contrast from 3.5 where high level play changed dramatically (even as a mundane, but especially with a caster).

On the other hand, there were things in 4e I really liked. The healing surge value was a great mechanic because it made it so a fighter doesn’t need 10x more resources or time to heal to full than a wizard, despite supposedly being tougher. As mentioned, mundanes gaining any sort of parity was a plus, even if it was parity on a lower power scale. A clear definition of tiers and power sources were good in concept, if limited in execution. And 4e monster design was probably the highlight of the edition. The specific math behind it had some problems, but the ease with which you could throw together a custom monster that is balanced with everything else in the monster manual is amazing, and made actually running a 4e game enjoyable for me.

Anyway, all this rambling has a point, and not just edition warring. The point I’m trying to make is that I had points in both 3e and 4e I had liked. There were flaws in both I felt should be overcome. In D&D 5e, I was honestly hoping for a melding of the best of both worlds. A balance between martials and mundanes, where each power source has its own resource system. Class tiers clearly defined that actually feel different when you reach them. And so on.

Instead, 5e from what we have been shown in the playtest so far, and from what the developers have been saying, feels a lot more like it’s taking a step all the way back to 1e or 2e, and then is going to try to tack on optional modules to make the game you want to play. Personally, this isn’t interesting to me. First, because even though you can put feathers and a beak on a bear, it still isn’t an owl, and won’t fly. Slapping modules onto a core designed for a completely different kind of game just isn’t going to work.

Right now, the core of DDN is being designed to have almost no power scale. Almost all power scaling comes from hit points and damage. We’ve been told because of bounded accuracy, AC and to-hit bonuses will not increase much, if at all, so that weaker monsters can remain a threat at high levels. Similarly, skills are in a similar position where they aren’t allowed to scale either. I won’t get into it too much here, because it’s really not the place, but I really don’t like the idea that scaling is being toned down so much. It makes the difference between level 1 and level 20 seem like much less.

Combine that with the fact that martial characters are back to having no resource system, so they can be the ‘simple’ class for some people, and they’ve more or less lost me completely. The articles have spoken about giving a fighter maneuvers via themes, but when a fighter has to spend his theme to gain access to a few maneuvers while a caster gains access to a full spell list for free, that’s a very obvious discrepancy in capability right from the start. If the caster were only going to be able to use those slots for damage dealing, then whatever I could deal with it. But spells have always been powerful not for their damage, but for their special encounter ending effects, and broad utility. Which we are already seeing a fair bit of in an extremely limited level 1-3 playtest.

But honestly, either way it’s a loss. If wizards get utility from their spells, and fighters don’t have any special abilities, we’re back to 3e’s “Wizards get awesome at high levels, mundanes get nothing”. If Wizards don’t get any useful utility, we’re back to 4e’s “High levels don’t actually feel high level” except even worse because at least in 4e you had high skill check bonuses and a set of dedicated utility powers. In 5e you get nothing at all.

“But wait!” you say, “They can just put super high level characters into a module!”. But that’s where it all falls apart. For high level characters to have capabilities equivalent to what they had pre-4e, monster design needs to be radically different to accommodate it. So then you have to wonder, who gets supported, the group with abilities, or the group without? Either way, one group is losing out because even if they have their playstyle in the books, they lack the monsters to play with it. Similarly, they lack access to prewritten modules and the like, because one option will inevitably be used more than the other.

Anyway, I’m done with my rant now. The tl;dr is: I liked parts of 3e and 4e. I wanted a combination of the best of both. What I see so far feels more like a combination of the worst of both, with some parts of 2e mixed in. As it stands, the game is not something I am interested in purchasing, and will need to see very major changes made to the core before I am.

One of the more ‘interesting’ problems WoTC face these days isn’t just the game mecahnics. Back in ‘the day’, one of the things that made Dungeons and Dragons the #1 RPG was that it was ‘first’ so to speak. It also boasted some of the best art and design and did things other companies weren’t actively doing. These days, none of those are true anymore. Monte, Necromancer, and others including Paizo, have pushed the boundires of what the fans say they want, and given it to them, in deluxe high end packaages. Look at Heroes of the Feywild’s terrible cover and look at some Paizo books. I’m not saying one for one Paizo always wins or anything like that, but WoTC is NOT the only fish in the pond and not even the only fish in the pond with art and marketing budgets. The games coming out of Fantasy Flight and other venues are meeting WoTC products and winning. And it’s not like WoTC doesn’t have the contacts/resources to get the artists and layout professioanls on these things. Look at Magic and look at D&D. While the latter will never be the former, the latter will also never regain its status if funds aren’t sunk into making it look and read, the best it can, regardless of the rules.

Look at Warhammer 40K. Tons of haters but it’s new book is $74.95 and they made several variants of it, gamer’s edition and collector’s edition. One thing that people are already talking about is how fantastic it looks.

I’ll be sad to see WoTC stop supporting D&D but it’s not going to make it at the rate WoTC wants if they can’t step up their game.

In terms of ‘pressure’ from Hasbro, there’s a few quotes out there about the $$$$ D&D needed to hit to avoid being ‘reviewed’ so to speak. Those were a few months ago and I’m lazy and I’m not saying they were from ‘official’ sources but the sources seemed credible enough at the time that people have stuck with them.

When it comes to running D&D games, I am the ultimate D&D pirate. If it’s not nailed down and it’s worth something, consider it already stolen and re-purposed. If it’s not worth my time, it’s tossed overboard without any lingering doubts.

Don’t like that dice-rolling mechanic? Replace it with a flat bonus. Don’t like the coup de grace rules? Use the ones from the previous edition you do like. Prefer everything had bludgeoning/slashing/piercing resistance? NAIL. THAT. STUFF. ON. LIKE. PLYWOOD.

The opposite is true when I’m playing in someone else’s game. Then I follow along with the DM’s guidelines and the system’s rules as closely as I can to get the feel of it. If it’s 3.5, I’m all about feats and managing skill points. If it’s 4E, I have my power selection down through the next 10 levels. If it’s another system, I make sure to note the parts I like and try to ask the DM before the game about the parts I don’t so I can either navigate them quickly (and not malinger or whine) or better udnerstand and experience them.

D&D Next feels a lot like they took a chainsaw to the 3.5 rules, and added a piece or two from 4E design. I’m excited because I think I can teach it to new people extremely quickly, and haul out my old 3E adventures I’ve never been able to properly run (Savage Tide, Shackled City, and Rise of the Runelord Adventure Paths, I’m looking at you) and possibly run those with exceedingly minimal conversion. If I had veteran players, 4E would be my game of choice over D&D Next. If I had new players or a mixed group, D&D Next would be my choice over 4E. And if I had a group who demanded Pathfinder, I’d present it with a smile, and maybe suggest rolling with advantage, backgrounds instead of skills ranks, and some at-will spells for the casters.

To be honest, WotC lost me with their business plan. I think they are bad bad company (Hasbro fault probably). I like 4e, not more then I like 3.5, but I actively run games.

I like Paizo for their love, attention to detail, and the fact they sell PDFs of their books for around $10.00. So I can buy the book on the cheap for my tablet and when I got some more money buy the physical book (because nothing beats a real book).

I like Fantasy Flight for their organization and attention to detail. Their books are marvelously well organized for Dark Heresy and 40k, they are worth every penny and I gladly pay $60 for their books as its not like reading a text book when I read them cover to cover.

I miss the days when TSR/Wizards was ground breaking, innovative and took chances like when OGL license first hit and everyone was all “o-to-no’s you’ll bankrupt the pnp rpg business!” I feel that DnDN is leaning in that direction, they just need to jump already and show us how creative and innovative they can be.

I think the largest point of contention some people had with 4E was how fast the support for the old system was dropped. Even when we went from AD&D to 3.x, they took their time phasing out support for AD&D. When it went from 3.x to 4E, it was like “Sorry, we’re done supporting the third edition before we even have the 4th one out the door.”

The other thing that created WotC’s biggest competitor – Paizo – to get a large handhold in the RPG market was that they totally told everyone early that they were changing from an OGL to a closed license. And you had to chose – if you were making 4E stuff, you couldn’t make 3.x stuff anymore. If you made 3.x stuff, you weren’t allowed to make 4E stuff until you stopped making 3.x stuff. Later on, they changed that license agreement, but it was already too late. A lot of people who spent tons of money on 3.x stuff decided to take their money elsewhere, because Paizo basically said, “Geez, we’ll make 3.x stuff regardless of a new edition.” When 4E came out, they were able to also sell 4E stuff for other companies because they never said they wouldn’t support 4E. Unlike Wizards, who told everyone too early in the game that you had to support one or the other, while dropping support for 3.x before 4E even left the building.

The problem with D&D Next is that they are making the exact same mistake as with 4e … starting from scratch. AD&D to 3e was a huge leap, but nothing compared to 3e to 4e … they squandered a much larger part of their player base during the transition because of it.

They should just admit their mistake and take a step back … start from 3e, fix the power imbalances by making casters more dependent on martial characters (you could have hitpoint damage make large differences in saves for instance) replace prestige classes with paragon/epic paths, import rituals and a couple of the more popular 4e classes and the tiefling race (leave the scalys/furrys/crystals/robots out of core though, those have too much antipathy).

This is what 5e should be … the great unifier. Mearls ego doesn’t allow a step back though … onward to oblivion.

A year later and I haven’t liked the direction next has taken. How ever I do respect the hard work of the wizards team and the fact they play-tested this next edition to death so they make sure they squash as many issues that plague other editions. Have to respect that. I however decided quite some time ago to stick with 3.5 until something comes along that makes me want to move onto that edition. 4th didn’t quite do it for me. Not that it was bad because its not and they got many things right it just didn’t fit my style of play. So until 5th is official I’ll just keep poking around for more information.